Date of Filing : 15.10.2022

                                                              Date of Disposal : 17.05.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED :17.05.2024

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER

,

APPEAL No.2074/2022

The Asst Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

1^st Floor, Bilwashree Arcade

SIT Main Road

Tumkuru  - 572 103

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)                                     Appellant

• Versus   -

Mr D T Chandrashekara

S/o Late Thimegowada Srinidhi

Major

R/o SRINIDHIKEB Layout

Near Theatre Lakshmi

Batavadi, Tumkur-572 103                                              Respondent
(By Mr T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

  : ORDER :

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

01.     This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 15.07.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.15/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkuru (for short, the District Commission).

02.     Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for Appellant and Respondent. Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal and documents on record.

03.     The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint with cost of Rs.3,000/- and directed the OP1 to revise  the past and present service of the Complainant, by giving two years of weightage under Para 12 (3) & 12(7) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 within 45 days from the Date of the Order, otherwise, it shall carry interest at 12% p.a from the Date of the Order.   Complaint as against OP2 is Dismissed as not pressed.

04.     Feeling aggrieved by the Order, OP is in Appeal, inter-alia, contending amongst other grounds, that the District Commission failed to note that, though the Respondent had opted for Reduced Pension, hence, the 1^st condition for Superannuating at the age of 58 years is not fulfilled and secondly, he had not put in 20 years of pensionable service, hence, he does not fulfil any of the condition to become eligible for the weightage. Further contended that, the District Commission has erroneously relied on Channakeshavalu case, which is applicable to only Para 12 (4), where no opinion is expressed in respect of Para 12 (3) & 12(5).  Further, Appellant contended that, as the Respondent had retired on 31.03.2001, the Table B Factor, i.e., 28^th February 1996 should be considered for calculating the Reduced Pension.  When the Respondent was admitted for payment of Pension, on 31.03.2001, the Respondent was of 42 years of age and hence, he was not eligible even for Reduced Pension on 01.06.2010.  That the Table B factor, which came into effect on 9^th June 2008 was rightly applied and the correct Pension was calculated.  District Commission failed to note that the Minimum Pension is only for aggregate pension and not independently for Past Service Pension and Pensionable Service Pension. Further, as this Respondent’s commencement of pension was on 01.06.2020, which is after the amendment to Para 12 of 15.06.2007, hence, the amended Para applies. Therefore, OP seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

05.     Perusal of the records reveals that, it is not in dispute that, the Complainant was the member of Employees Provident Fund Organisation; contributed his contribution to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971; continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 also; he joined HMT Watch Factory IV, Tumkuru on 23.04.1980 and he retired from the service on 31.03.2001.  On perusal of the Calculation Sheet produced,  it is seen that the Complainant’s Date of Birth is 01.06.1959; he rendered total service of 21 years i.e., past service of 15 years, 6 months, 22 days, rounded off to 16 years & actual service of 5 years, 4 months, 16 days and after deducting NCP of 35 days, his actual service is 5 years. Thus, as per proviso to Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, the Respondent has to comply with the conditions that, as on the date of retirement either should have attained the age of 58 years or completion of 20 years of pensionable service. In the case on hand, the Complainant had retired on 31.03.2001 by rendering Pensionable Service of more than 20 years and he had complied with the conditions of amendment to Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009, hence, he is entitled for weightage of 2 years and also entitled to receive revised Monthly Pension with Arrears thereof, as per Para 12(3) of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007, since age of the Complainant as on 16.11.1995, was 36 years. The fact remains that, the Complainant had not been Superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected his Member to his entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension, at the reduction rate of 3% for every year of short fall in his service, as the age of the Member qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.   Per contra, the contention of the Appellant that he fixed the pension and other benefits of the complainant as per existing rules of EPS 1995, which were prevailing at the time of Retirement of the Complainant from his service, i.e., Para 12.3 and 12.7 of EPS 1995 by not granting weightage of two years and not fixing the entitled Monthly Pension properly, definitely amounts to deficiency in service. In the circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that, the Impugned Order is just and proper.  However, in so far as awarding of interest @ 12% p.a on arrears of Pension due & payable, it is observed that it is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned dated 15.07.2022 passed in Complaint No.15/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkuru is hereby stands Modified to that extent only and the Order by the District Forum in respect of  other aspects remains un-disturbed. 

6.       The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

7.       Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

Lady Member                   Judicial Member                           President

*s